Skip to content
Safe & Just Michigan at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Safe & Just Michigan

Works to advance policies that end michigan's overuse of incarceration and promotes community safety and healing.

$202k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$127k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2024.

Crime & Legal$1.8MCivil Rights$400kCommunity Improvement$25kHealth$20k
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$127,001
Median grant
2
States reached
$1.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NATION OUTSIDE$127,001
AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE$75,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 95% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE: $100k → 22%RECOVERY CONCEPTS: $20k → 8%MICHIGAN INDIAN LEGAL SERVICES: $36k → 10%LAKESHORE LEGAL AID: $36k → 10%LEGAL AID OF WESTERN MICHIGAN: $36k → 11%MICHIGAN ADVOCACY PROGRAM: $45k → 14%PUBLIC POLICY ASSOCIATES LLC: $30k → 16%MICHIGAN FAITH IN ACTION: $25k → 16%NATION OUTSIDE: $1.2M → 21%AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE: $100k → 22%LEGAL SERVICES OF SOUTH CENTRAL MICHIGAN: $36k → 14%LEGAL SERVICES OF EASTERN MICHIGAN: $36k → 16%NATION OUTSIDE: $300k → 21%AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE: $75k → 22%MICHIGAN ADVOCACY PROGRAM: $35k → 14%NATION OUTSIDE: $127k → 21%AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE: $75k → 22%MICHIGAN ADVOCACY PROGRAM: $35k → 14%DETROIT JUSTICE CENTER: $10k → 21%AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE: $50k → 22%A BRIGHTER WAY: $20k → 14%MOTHERING JUSTICE: $75k → 21%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

87%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.1M · 3 repeat orgs$324k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +799% since the first grant, against +145% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
10

Total granted

$2.1M
$324k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+799%
+145%

Still filing today

67%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’18’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’18’21’22’23’24’25
Crime & LegalCivil RightsCommunity ImprovementOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • NO
    NATION OUTSIDE INC
    3× · 2023–2025 · $1.6M · 100% of their budget
  • AF
    AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE
    6× · 2019–2025 · $400k
  • MA
    Michigan Advocacy Program
    4× · 2021–2024 · $151k · revenue +53%

Funded once

  • MJ
    MOTHERING JUSTICEgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $75k · revenue +168%
  • LA
    Legal Aid of Western Michigan
    one grant, 2021 · $36k · revenue +5%
  • LS
    Legal Services of Eastern Michigangraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $36k · revenue +39%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Michigan Legal Services

Provide free legal assistance to indigent and low income persons

Crime & Legal
2
Legal Services of Northern Michigan

To be a public law firm that knows, as well as understands, the problems of even the poorest in our communities and addresses these problems through education, and with creative legal advocacy of the highest distinction. LSNM will be seen…

Crime & Legal
3
Judicial Integrity Project

To improve Michigans judiciary through the evaluation, education promotion of judges committed to deciding cases based on the plain meaning of text stare decisis develop an education program for legislators general public to raise…

—
4
Action for Liberation

Michigan Liberation is dedicated to the leadership development of community members and creation of effective campaigns to advance racial, gender and economic justice in Michigan

Civil Rights
5
Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition

Works to end environmental injustice by empowering communities at the grassroots level.the corporation is organzied exclusively for charitable, religious, educational and scientific purposes, including for such purposes, the makeing of…

Environment
6
The Toledo Legal Aid Society

Toledo Legal Aid Society provides legal representation for indigent clients that are charged with criminal, traffic, or juvenile offenses for which the penalty or any possible adjudication includes the potential loss of liberty.

—
7
Cair Michigan Inc

The organizations mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, and empower American Muslims and build coalitions to promote justice and mutual understanding through education, mediation,…

International
8
District of Columbia Access to Justice

Work with DC courts, private bar & legal services providers to increase legal representations for low & moderate income DC residents, enhance efficiency of legal services, and reduce barriers to the judicial system.

Crime & Legal
9
Monroe County Senior Legal Services

To provide civil legal services to the residents of Monroe County, Michigan who are 60 years of age or older.

Crime & Legal
10
Maine Equal Justice Partners

Maine Equal Justice is a nonprofit legal aid and economic justice organization working to increase economic security, opportunity and equity for people in Maine.

Crime & Legal
11
Vlp Inc

The Maine Volunteer Lawyers Project is a legal aid organization that provides free legal information, assistance, and representation to Mainers with low incomes facing civil legal issues.

Crime & Legal
12
Michigan Jobs Coalition

To promote job retention and creation in the State of Michigan

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Legal Aid of Western Michigan; the most unlike its peers is Still Standing Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

13 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/13
Grantees still filing
12/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NATION OUTSIDE INC: $1,584,062 · Crime & LegalNATION OUTSIDE INCMichigan Advocacy Program: $151,000 · Crime & LegalMichigan Advocacy Program+5 more: $154,000 · Crime & Legal+5 moreAMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE: $400,000 · OtherAMERICAN FRIENDS SERV…PUBLIC POLICY ASSOCIATES LLC: $29,750 · OtherPUBLIC POLICY ASSOCIA…A Brighter Way: $20,000 · OtherRECOVERY CONCEPTS: $20,000 · OtherMOTHERING JUSTICE: $75,000 · Civil RightsMICHIGAN FAITH IN ACTION: $25,000 · Community Improvement
Crime & Legal$1,889,062Other$469,750Civil Rights$75,000Community Improvement$25,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNATION OUTSIDE INC: $1,584,062 over 3y, 100% of budgetMichigan Advocacy Program: $151,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetMOTHERING JUSTICE: $75,000 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetLegal Aid of Western Michigan: $36,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetLegal Services of Eastern Michigan: $36,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetLakeshore Legal Aid: $36,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetMichigan Indian Legal Services: $36,000 over 1y, 4.0% of budgetMICHIGAN FAITH IN ACTION: $25,000 over 2y, 8.5% of budgetA Brighter Way: $20,000 over 1y, 8.0% of budgetDetroit Justice Center: $10,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Michigan State Bar Fo…United Way for Southe…WK Kellogg FoundationLegal Services Corpor…The Kresge FoundationCommunity Foundation …Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Michigan State Bar FoundationMI17.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Michigan State Bar Foundation · United Way for Southeastern Michigan · WK Kellogg Foundation · Legal Services Corporation · The Kresge Foundation · Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Safe & Just Michigan funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Safe & Just Michigan. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 13 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Safe & Just Michigan’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home